Gov. Stein appeals a ruling supporting the elections power grab, case may now appear before NC Supreme Court
Governor Josh Stein last week filed a petition asking the NC Supreme Court to strike down the legislative power grab that transferred power to appoint state and local boards of election from the governor’s office to the State Auditor. The NC State Auditor’s office has never before had a role in overseeing elections, and is the only State Auditor in the United States to hold that authority now.
Stein continues to make the case that the legislature’s removal of that responsibility from the governor’s office represents not just an unprecedented partisan political maneuver, but an unconstitutional action interfering with the governor’s executive responsibility to enforce state elections laws. His petition appeals to the NC Supreme Court to reverse a decision by a panel of the NC Court of Appeals to allow the transfer of that power.
Importance of separation of powers
“The Governor is the State’s chief executive, vested with the State’s executive power and the obligation to ensure faithful execution of the law,” his attorneys wrote in Wednesday’s petition. “Taken to its logical end, the majority’s opinion empowers the General Assembly to transfer, at its whim, any executive duty or power from the Governor to any other executive official the legislature favors more at any time.”
That would effectively put the legislature in charge of the executive branch, a clear breach of the NC state constitution.
In a 2-1 decision, which split along party lines of the three participating Appeals Court judges, the court ruled in September that the transfer was not unconstitutional. The same court had decided months earlier that the law could go into effect while they considered the matter.
“Only the Governor is charged”
In his dissent from the Appeals Court panel majority decision, Judge John Arrowood criticized the decision. “By the plain text of our Constitution, only the Governor is charged with taking care that the law be faithfully executed,” Arrowood wrote, adding that because of that, “our Supreme Court has recognized that the Governor must have ‘enough control’ over agencies that ‘are primarily administrative or executive in character'” such as the elections board.
Arrowood took further issue with the court’s earlier decision to allow the law to go into effect while they studied the case, despite the fact that the trial court judge which originally heard the case ruled in favor of the governor’s challenge. He wrote, “I am concerned that continued application in this manner would see other lower courts ignored while appeals are effectively decided during their pendency, or the normalization of deciding extraordinary writs with no reasoning.”
Fair, equitable administration of elections
More broadly, critics of the legislature’s maneuver point out that fair and equitable administration of the elections process is essential to the survival of democracy and equal voting rights for all citizens. The more partisan the administration of elections is allowed to become, the more cases we will see of changes that restrict citizens’ rights on the basis of how they are seen as likely to vote.
Examples include manipulating the location of polling places to make it harder for students to vote, restricting the days and hours of early voting to reduce the opportunities for workers with restrictive schedules to make it to the polls, and manipulating voter photo ID requirements to disenfranchise citizens without a current driver’s license or passport.
NCLCV’s work includes a strong focus on fair elections and voting rights because they are essential to the people’s ability to hold their elected representatives accountable—including for their decisions on environmental protection and public health.
Help us protect our democracy, and in turn, protect our environment by becoming a recurring donor today!